Mistrial declared in murder trial

Published: Friday, September 13, 2013 at 10:57 PM.

Photo Galleries

Brock’s attorney, Kim Dowgul, used her closing arguments to highlight the fact that the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence and forensic evidence that Brock attempted to explain away. He had spent a lot of time in Brazil’s house over the years, sleeping over when they “had too enjoyable an evening.” Brock explained that he’d brushed up against the bed post used to bludgeon Brazil, which would explain why his DNA was on it.

Basford urged jurors not to get distracted from the evidence, especially the forensic evidence.

“The good thing about forensic evidence is that it’s just there; it’s either there or it’s not there,” Basford said, adding, “DNA doesn’t lie.”

PANAMA CITY — Phillip Brock got on the witness stand and refuted much of the testimony that came during the first two days of his trial on a first-degree murder charge in the death of Terry Brazil.

And after six hours of deliberation Friday, a jury couldn’t decide his fate.

The 12-person jury twice came to Judge Brantley Clark in a deadlock Friday. After a late dinner at the courthouse, they remained unable to issue a verdict, and Judge Clark declared a mistrial about 9:30 p.m.

During his defense, Brock said he was never hard up for cash, despite testimony earlier in the week that described him as broke and needy. The people who described him that way were either lying or mistaken, he said.

Under cross-examination from prosecutor Larry Basford, Brock was surly. He raised his voice in response to questions about details that he didn’t include in his initial statement that he gave to investigators before he was arrested.

He and Brazil had known each other for years, and they often sold goods together at yard sales, which is why he had so much of Brazil’s property stored at his home in Southport. He was stressed when he gave his statement because he had just learned of the death of his friend, Brazil.

“I had forgotten those things were in there,” Brock said. “It’s not like I was trying to hide anything. I just didn’t think it was important.”

Brock’s attorney, Kim Dowgul, used her closing arguments to highlight the fact that the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence and forensic evidence that Brock attempted to explain away. He had spent a lot of time in Brazil’s house over the years, sleeping over when they “had too enjoyable an evening.” Brock explained that he’d brushed up against the bed post used to bludgeon Brazil, which would explain why his DNA was on it.

Basford urged jurors not to get distracted from the evidence, especially the forensic evidence.

“The good thing about forensic evidence is that it’s just there; it’s either there or it’s not there,” Basford said, adding, “DNA doesn’t lie.”

NOTE: Clicking on hashtags in this stream may result in seeing adult material, such as photos or foul language, that appear elsewhere on Twitter. We do not endorse such material, but we do not have control over what items can be found in hashtag searches.